The words are used by a linguistic community. They gain definite meanings from the common usage through a process of abstracting them from the communicational contexts and then by storage them in the memory.
May we say the same about silences? Certainly, we share someone’s silence in a linguistic community. The silent person keeps silence by keeping herself away from speaking.
There is also a memory of someone’s silence and not only an imaginative memory. Such a memory may be equally alive as that of someone’s spoken words.
We may conceive memory storage as an echo of the spoken words. The echo prolongs the duration of speaking and silence, so that anybody can return and revisit them.
One who revisits words loose their full contextual frame and therefore he is not in touch with the original communicational way of delivering those words.
Though paradoxically, anybody who revisits other’s silence rebuilds a communicational frame, since the silence may be reinterpreted in order to make sense and such an interpretation force him to imagine how the silent person communicated to him. There is less important that the original communication did not used words.
This advantage of the silence is rarely considered because of the fact that it is easily confounded with a simple image. Otherwise, the silence could reveal more about communication, since it maintains the original context and, as a consequence, it would be more valuable for decrypting from it the meaning of the words that interrupt the silence.